Have Offensive Images? Don't Travel
-
Have Offensive Images? Don't Travel
This was interesting to me. I'd never really thought about it, but then again I avoid going through customs if at all possible. Did you know that laptops can be seized by customs and have been, for just a suspicion of something?
Apparently you have no right to privacy, including your data, just because you have it on a laptop. The officials of the Customs Department can not only seize your laptop, but they could actually look to view the contents. It's not clear if they would do this in your presence or privately, but that gives me some severe concerns about data security.
Talk about a security hole. Since I doubt customs officials are the best paid security people in the country, how hard would it be for someone to bribe officials to "steal" data and resell it? I can't see corporations doing it, but someone who makes a living with information might find it worthwhile to keep customs officials supplied with USB keys or even an iPod to slurp off data and send it to them. Perhaps without the individual being aware.
So you executives traveling in suits with those small 10-12" screens, beware. You might be prime targets for a little search and seize action. Or even if you're dressed nice with a snazzy new laptop, on the off chance all your bank account passwords are stored in the browser's password facility.
I wonder what the impact of encryption is on a laptop? Can you be arrested if you don't reveal keys? The security in airports is a little tight and you can be arrested for merely creating a disturbance, like arguing your case. Without access to a lawyer or even the local police there to help mediate things.
The bits are the valuable part of the computer for most of us. While it would be a pain to replace a laptop, replacing the data could be many times worse. For those of you traveling through customs, in the US or elsewhere, you might want to think about what you are transporting through.
And be sure you have a backup copy, not on (or inside) your person when you do so.
Steve Jones
-
I wonder what the impact of encryption is on a laptop? Can you be arrested if you don't reveal keys?
At least that puts you in control. You can determine whether to reveal keys or call your lawyer. It's a lot better than having snoops run around without your knowledge.
Some encryption (including Truecrypt) allow an additional level of security. In addition to the key which unlocks the virtual drive, there may be a second key which unlocks additional information. Or maybe not. There is no way for an attacker to tell.
...
-- FORTRAN manual for Xerox Computers --
-
This is just one more proof of how the U.S. is slowly but surely becoming a fascist state. If you disagree, just wait. Today, your most private possessions can be seized arbitrarily (not just by custom agents!), and even the slightest complain can get you arrested. Tomorrow.....
-
I used to think we were in control and a lawyer was our recourse, but now with the ability to in voke "national security", you can be detained without a lawyer.
-
This kind of thing is totally wrong. This is why you all need to write a hand-worded letter to your congressmen complaining about this issue. Make it clear that you won't stand for this kind of treatment. Bob Beauprez knows my name because of issues like this. I have some nice letters from his office that appear to be actually written in reponse to what I wrote (rather than form letter style). He agrees with me on some issues but disagrees on this one. There's a large group of politicians and private citizens as well, who don't understand how a series of tiny losses in our personal rights can turn a country into Nazi Germany! Lack of any historical perspective is a huge problem with people these days, and we are repeating the mistakes of history on a daily basis in this country. It's not going to be any different this time. History is apparently not being taught in schools anymore, and the politicians are taking advantage of our ignorance.
Make sure you check the positions of candidates in your state before you vote, and don't support anyone who advocates this kind of government. Don't elect another Hitler!
(since I mentioned Hitler and the Nazis, this thread is apparently 'over', and I'm the 'loser', but whatever... this is important stuff)
-
Ask me about the time I went to JAIL because I wouldn't give up my Peanut Butter Cookies recipe!
-
US Customs has had the ability forever to prevent just about anything from entering the country until they are convinced it is legal and not a danger. The Fourth Amendment rights against search and seizure without a warrant do not apply to items entering the country from overseas, even persoanl possessions. I doubt you would be arrested for not revealing the encryption key, but there's an excellent chance the laptop would be seized until you comply.
-
SET COLD_REALITY_MODE ON
"What" have "they" taken away from you ? Just one thing. Our "illusion". Anthony Hopkins in the movie Instinct provides an excellent education on this subject.
SET COLD_REALITY_MODE OFF
SET ROSE_COLORED_GLASSES ON !!!
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
-
Did you not understand that they have taken away the right to keep your personal data private, just because you happened to step into an airport? Maybe it's nothing new, but it doesn't make it right. Privacy is not an illusion. The illusion is that people think their phone number, bank account number, address and so on, is private when it's not. Your personal data on your personal computer is private and nobody else's business unless they can prove probable cause to search your machine, and can get a judge to issue a search warrant.
I can think of many ways to exploit this situation right off the top of my head. What if I, as your competitor, called in a tip to the FBI that you might be a terrorist, and you were held up at the airport while they searched your computer... meanwhile I'm out there shmoozin your clients, since you missed the meeting. Is that fair? Should law enforcement have that power? What happens when people IN law enforcement or politicians start to play games like that? Maybe I've pissed off some local sherrif cuz I'm a whistle-blower on his corruption... this law gives them the power to mess with me in a major way. We shouldn't stand for this. You can't go around treating people like criminals until you have good (documented) reason to think they might actually be one. That's what really pisses me off, is that the groups who are charged with keeping us safe, have to resort to treating everyone like criminals because they would rather check everyone than do their job and figure out who the criminals are. Being suspicious of everyone is a good policy, but treating them like suspects is not, until you have good reason to do so.
-
... it has taken me a bit of time to get back to this thread ...
...I have been busy putting aluminum foil up on the walls, windows, ceiling and floor to keep the thought police from reading my mind ...
RegardsRudy KomacsarSenior Database Administrator"Ave Caesar! - Morituri te salutamus."
-
In Australia there are much stronger data protection laws then in the US.
I'd simply tell them that it's illegal for me to give them access to my laptop as it would be a breach of the data protection laws of two countries (Australia and the UK which I do work for). "I'd love to give you access to my laptop and help you out here, but I can't legally do it, sorry."
Of course, I'd still miss the meeting, but at least it would make them think a little and perhaps consult some lawyers (give me the chance to consult a lawyer) before throwing me in jail.
-
No AL hats? Line your baseball cap/bowler/bush hat before you come to PASS
-
<<they would rather check everyone than do their job and figure out who the criminals are.>>
Cart before the horse here. The inference here is that a person should be able to determine who is a criminal and who is not by some means other then logical factual determination. Something like "lets profile this group of people" and determine who is a criminal and who is not.
Well that really works. Who determines what a criminal looks like, wears, color of skin, height, weight, smell? How can you determine who is a criminal and who is not without facts determined by some means?
Look only for those who have a record, right. Recruit a new person to the cause who has no records and you pass, illegal material and all.
Remember that wild statement about having to kiss a lot of frogs before you find a prince? Well you have to check a lot of honest people to find a criminal. That is just the way it is.
I am sorry about this but the logic in your discussion is so flawed that it surprizes me. You usually are more rational then this. Remember the order of things. It is not Rant then Think! Think first and think often.
Hope you have a better afternoon.
Not all gray hairs are Dinosaurs!
-
You quoted me and then got it backwards. I'm saying yes, use factual information to figure out who is who, rather than investigating everyone and hoping you turn up something. I'm not particularly worried about the case where an investigation turns up something they weren't originally looking for, but have a reason to investigate the person in the first place. If you're investigating someone for purchasing fuel oil and fertiliser, and you turn up kiddie porn on their laptop... groovy, I'm happy with that, bust them for it like they deserve.
I'm not suggesting that profiling and treating whole groups like criminals to net the ones who really are, is ineffective. I'm saying it's morally and legally wrong. I've been on a ride-along with a cop in Boulder, and it's pretty clear that they can spot the people who are up to no good, with instinct rather than hard police work. That's a good reason to stop and question someone and find out what they're doing, but it doesn't give you the right to go digging through their entire life if your cursory investigation doesn't turn up anything. Cops stop people on the street all the time and don't go any further than that - if you talk to the person and you can't get anything on them, you need to let them go. You cross an important line when you start agressively investigating people who aren't suspects in a particular crime. Investigating people just because you can is wrong.
Unfortunately I don't have the solution to this problem, and it is a trade-off. How many of our personal rights are we willing to sacrifice in order to catch the criminals? The answer to that question is different for each person you ask, and I don't think there's a middle ground where everyone will be happy. I just don't like policies that have a huge potential for abuse. This is one case where the slippery slope argument applies. Each little freedom we give up makes it that much easier to take more freedoms away, and eventually we're under martial law, and I don't think anybody wants that, and the people who do want that are the ones who really scare me.
BTW, focusing only on people who have a record is not what I'm saying. That's obviously a way to make sure that nobody ever gets investigated. What I'm asking for is a little common sense information to be applied before doing further investigation... "I thought he was drunk so I searched the car and found open containers", is correct. "He was in the airport so we searched his computer", is not correct - you've got to have something more to go on. It doesn't have to be something major, or particularly incriminating, just something that makes that person "more suspect" than the general public.
I'm not an anarchist or even a libertarian, but I do support the US Constitution, and it's currently under attack. I agree that we probably need to re-interpret some things in light of the new world we live in and things that the founding fathers could not have predicted, but the principle of the law should be upheld. The founding fathers included the things in the Bill of Rights for a reason - because they had witnessed heinous abuses of power in the countries they were fleeing from. They did their best to write laws that would prevent those abuses. Everybody wants effective law enforcement, but nobody wants abuses of power (except the powerful).
My apologies if I didn't sound like I was thinking straight. I don't really care if people share my conclusions or not, just as long as they think about the issues for themselves, which I think people in this thread are doing very well.
-
I think you are naive when you say "I can't see corporations doing it".
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 14 (of 14 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply